A Visual Turn for Organizational Ethnography:Embodying the Subject in Video-based Research

by

John Hassard (Manchester University, UK), Diane Burns (Sheffield University, UK), Paula Hyde (Manchester University, UK) and John-Paul

Burns (Yorkshire Artspace, UK)

Author Accepted Manuscript

Accepted 6 June 2017 by Organization Studies.

To be cited as:

Hassard, J., Burns, D., Hyde, P, and Burns, J-P. (2017) A Visual Turn for Organizational Ethnography: Embodying the Subject in Video-based Research.

Organization Studies.

Copyright © 2017 (The Authors).

Full paper can be found at:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/117552/

1

A Visual Turn for Organizational Ethnography:

Embodying the Subject in Video-based Research

Abstract

For organizational ethnography we argue that traditional philosophies of onto-epistemological realism

be supplanted by interpretive and reflexive thinking to provide fresh theoretical assumptions and new

methodological proposals for film- and video-based research. The argument is developed in three

phases: First, to establish analytical context, we explore the historical evolution of the ethnographic

organizational documentary and discuss habitual problems – methodological, philosophical and

technical – filmmakers have faced when claiming qualities of directness and objectivity in their work;

that is, through the style of ‘film-truth’. Second, to advance new conceptual logic for video-based

organizational research, we supplant the objectivist and realist philosophy underpinning traditional

documentary filmmaking with sociologically interpretive and reflexive arguments for undertaking

ethnography in organizations, a subjective process which importantly yields greater understanding of

affect and embodiment. Finally, to define new methodological opportunities, these interpretive and

reflexive arguments are marshalled to underpin a strategy of participatory thinking in video-based

organizational ethnography – a ‘withness’ approach facilitating a greater sense of affect and

embodiment as well as polyvocal interpretation of visual data; a practice which sees filmmakers,

social theorists, participants, and viewers alike united in analytical space.

Keywords

Documentary, embodiment, ethnography, filmmaking, organization studies, participatory, realism,

video

2

Introduction

‘Ethnographic film is too serious a thing to be left to filmmakers’ (Ruby, 1998, p. 6)

This paper concerns relations between theory and practice in visual socio-cultural research. Given the

increasing relevance of ethnography and visual research in the field of organization studies, the

question asked is ‘how should we (re)present data on organization in video-based ethnographic

investigations’? To this end, we discuss three elements central to documenting the life-world of the

organization visually – ethnographic filmmaking, social theory, and participant interaction.

When assessing organizational issues we argue that approaches and techniques of

ethnographic filmmaking have traditionally offered researchers little more than mindless empiricism,

or facts without theory. In contrast, we suggest that while, historically, ethnographic filmmaking

reflects standard realist ontology – and signally mechanistic allegories of the body – contemporary

forms of interpretive, reflexive and relationist analysis comprise a more varied palette for

understanding organization visually. Indeed for explaining such issues we feel tensions arise when

contrasting advances in social theory with the traditions and practices of film-based ethnography.

Our suggestion therefore is that ethnographic organizational research should take a visual turn

[1]. This sees a valuable association established between interpretive/post-structural theory and

documentary filmmaking practice in organizational ethnography emphasising affect, embodiment and

polyvocality. We seek to bring together the expertise of the filmmaker and the organization theorist

and unite them with participants and viewers in the same or very similar analytical space. Such

inquiry promotes new assumptions, logic and method for conceptualising participatory video-based

organizational ethnography.

The argument is realised in three parts. First, we establish context by analysing the history of

ethnographic filmmaking on work and organization. After discussing developments in method, style

and technique, we examine conceptual and philosophical – mainly onto-epistemological – principles

relating to how documentary filmmakers have traditionally sought to present reality, and especially

bodily reality. Second, we discuss the relationship between ethnographic filmmaking and modern

social theory as the onto-epistemological focus shifts from ‘truth’ philosophies of realism to

interpretative assumptions of idealism. We argue that recent social theory offers agendas far richer

3

than realism for the modern filmmaker to consider, especially when exploring affect and embodiment

in video-based accounts. And third, we join these historical and conceptual arguments to advance

visual inquiry infused with social theory, a project which takes reference to ‘participatory’ (Milne,

Mitchell and de Lange, 2012) and ‘withness’ (Shotter, 2006, 2011) thinking on research methodology.

Reflecting on possibilities for more affective, embodied and above all ‘critical’ documentary, we

argue ultimately for achieving this within a polyvocal approach to video-based organizational

research.

Analytical Context – In Search of Reality

‘The important filmmakers of the future will be amateurs’ (Attributed to Robert Flaherty,

c.1925, by Jean Rouch, 1992)

The main audience for our project is organization theorists/researchers and the objective to provide an

agenda for interpretive, reflexive and participatory inquiry in video-based organizational ethnography.

The questions we address are ones concerning the advantages that video-based research can offer

organization studies; specifically, approaches informed by sociologically subjective concepts. Our

goal is to strengthen the conceptual base for undertaking video-based organizational ethnography

through a ‘turn’ to alternative forms of theory and method. To establish a context of this analysis, we

initially discuss the history of documentary filmmaking as it relates to ethnographic studies of work

and organization, a history reflecting a predominantly passive onto-epistemological standpoint. In

tracing this history, we explore relationships between image, and reality, and focally how notions of

organization have been portrayed under the realist banner of ‘film-truth’.

Contextualizing film-truth

Documenting the nature of work and organization through films claiming to offer realistic insights is

an issue much discussed by commentators over the decades. Writing varies from studies of the

evolution of documentary styles (Eaton, 1979; Issari & Paul, 1979; Nelmes, 2012; Winston, 1995),

through work with a conceptual or philosophical emphasis (Bruzzi, 2006; Carel & Tuck, 2011;

Carroll & Choi, 2006; Livingston & Plantinga, 2009), to discussions of research and empirical

4

possibilities (Bell & Davidson, 2013; Emmison & Smith, 2000; Heath, Hindmarsh & Luff, 2010;

Meyer, Höllerer, Jancsary & van Leeuwen, 2013; Milne, Mitchell and de Lange, 2012).

In terms of the evolution of films investigating the ‘truth’ of organizational experience, much

of the literature has considered ways in which workplaces and other organizations are depicted in

relatively small-scale and low-budget documentaries (Aitken, 1998; Barnouw, 1975; Barsam, 1992;

Rotha, 1973). Such writing discusses productions whose focus is frequently the lives of agricultural

and industrial workers, and signally their occupational skills, social relations and cultural experiences

(Banks & Ruby, 2013; Cousins & Macdonald, 2006; Stead, 1998). Customarily, the filmic subject is

the physical body of workers, as used to emphasise heroism in organized labour, the aesthetics of

physical toil, or intimate experience of conventions, customs and rites (Aitken, 1990; Corner, 2005;

Durington & Ruby, 2011; Winston, 1995).

The style of ethnographic documentary in which such representations have characteristically

been portrayed is that commonly referred to as ‘film-truth’ (or cinéma vérité; kino-pravda; and

relatedly direct cinema; living camera; realistic cinema). The history of ethnographic film-truth has

seen the evolution of techniques dedicated to producing evermore direct and unmediated images of

social performance (Cousins & Macdonald, 2006; Issari & Paul, 1979). Philosophically, the

established concerns of this genre are the effects of artefact and mediation in productions which claim

to offer straightforward reflections of everyday reality; in other words, issues which confront the

filmmaker who is attempting to become, methodologically, a ‘fly-on-the-wall’. Achieving such

relatively unmediated access to reality thus lies at the heart of both technological developments and

stylistic movements (Barsam, 1992; Durington & Ruby, 2011; Rotha, 1973). For a century and more,

ethnographic filmmakers have reproved the aesthetic in which the art of the commercial film is based,

with dramatic or stylistic elements of such productions being rejected as a “hindrance to the portrayal

of the vital truth” (Armes, 1966, p. 125).

Debate has also concerned the objectives of ethnographic documentary in the film-truth

tradition. Writers have described a plethora of styles emerging under this heading, many seemingly

marginally connected to the goal of realising low reactivity images. During a popular decade for the

genre, the 1960s, writers argued that film-truth had become applied so freely that many offerings had

5

‘absolutely nothing in common except celluloid’ (Lipscombe, 1964, p. 62; see also Nichols, 2010).

Other commentators suggested film-truth was ‘the biggest hoax of the century’ and that ‘nothing is

more fabricated, more prepared, more licked into shape’ (Charles Fox, quoted in Issari & Paul, 1979,

p. 12). Such disparity has made film-truth one of the most debated styles in filmmaking and film

studies (Bruzzi, 2006; Christie, 2007; Nelmes, 2012). Indeed, despite the continuing demand for

organizational (especially corporate) documentaries – for example, Inside Job, Roger and Me, The

Smartest Guys in the Room or the largest grossing documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 – visual

anthropologists have often referred to the ‘myth of transparency’ (Bell & Davison, 2013, p. 2) or even

to ‘death of the ethnographic film’ (Ruby 1998, p. 1) when summarizing sociological critique about

the status of the genre.

History, philosophy and method

We can trace the origins of organizational ethnographic documentary to Dziga Vertov’s work on the

‘kino-eye’ as early as 1919, which advocated a ‘social realist’ approach to filming everyday social

and organizational events (Cousins & Macdonald, 2006). Vertov’s concept of kino-pravda required

the non-participation of the filmmaker as a fundamental condition of attaining ethnographic

authenticity. The camera was assumed to be an instrument of scientific study through which human

vision could be extended, similar to the microscope and x-ray. Instead of using sets, actors and scripts,

workers would play workers and peasants would play peasants.

It was more than 40 years later, however, that the genre became widely adopted. Interest was

stimulated by the kind of social science meets ethnographic film relationship we advocate in this

paper. The visual project in question, Chronique d'un été (Chronicle of a Summer, 1961), was an

experimental documentary by filmmaker Jean Rouch and sociologist Edgar Morin in which passers-

by were asked just one question: ‘are you happy’? In wake of Chronique, a large number of

categories and concepts emerged to define ethnographic filmmaking in the film-truth – or for

Rouch/Morin, cinéma vérité – style, these varying according to the filmmaker’s interpretation of

philosophical principles and practical objectives. Among the many styles associated with film-truth

documentary around this time were the ‘realistic cinema’ approach of Bill Jersey; the ‘living camera’

6

style of Richard Leacock; the ‘direct cinema’ method of Donn Pennebaker and the Maysles Brothers;

and the ‘personal documentary’ mode of Norman Swallow (Winston, 1995) [2].

Nevertheless, despite such a range of classifications and conceptions, as Ward (2005, p. 10)

argues ‘notions of objectivity and transparency resonate through the history of documentary’.

Similarly Bruzzi (2006, p. 120) suggests that ‘observational documentary has not been rendered

obsolete by the advent of more interactive and reflexive modes of non-fiction television and film’.

Accepting the implicitly objectivist assumptions of social transparency, in its purist sense the film-

truth documentary filmmaker has attempted to avoid judgment, so that the apparently ‘authentic’

experience of a situation can be revealed. Technical proficiency is deemed less important than

accessing the genuine sense of a setting. The filmmaker works classically without predetermined

notions of plot and avoids imposing structure, for the customary resources of the commercial film –

scripts, actors, stages, lighting, props, narration, etc. – are deemed anathema and somewhat corrupting

of ‘reality’. The task is merely to follow those involved and capture their experiences This is the

style that spawned much ‘reality TV’, with Fetveit (1999) for example tracing the lineage back though

living-camera and cinéma vérité all the way back to kino pravda. If work for example by Charles

Ferguson, Alex Gibney and Michael Moore is included, far from film-truth documentary being a

faded genre, recently we have witnessed its “renewed popularity” and how it has become a ‘global

commodity’ (Bruzzi, 2006, p. 1), notably through examining organization-related issues such as

corporate failure, systems collapse, business scandals, profiteering and cost-cutting in health care.

Technological evolution

Importantly, in seeking to improve audience experience of ethnographic documentary, filmmakers

have taken advantage of progressive technological innovations. Notable here has been the availability

of ever smaller and lighter equipment capable of recording longer sequences, with better-quality

sound, and in more intimate locations. Historically these developments have reflected movements

from static to mobile to personal equipment and its use from the domain of professionals to that of

amateurs. In an era where digital equipment is now widely available, technological developments

have increasingly presented opportunities for greater reflexivity on the part of the filmmaker as video

7

becomes more ‘personal’ (Ruby, 2000, 2005). Three brief examples from the history of documentary

make the point.

Kino-eye. In suggesting filmmaking purge itself of ‘everything that has not been taken from

life’ (Sadoul (1940, p. 172), Dziga Vertov’s work represents the first significant attempt at

ethnographic documentary. Influenced by the social realism of early Russian filmmaking – and also

arguably by the time and motion studies of Fredrick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth’s ‘Scientific

Management’ (see Beller, 2006; Cockburn, 2015) – Vertov initially argued that a fundamental

criterion for attaining ethnographic veracity was the abstention of the filmmaker from any creative

process, as instead he proposed a philosophy of cinematic realism in which the camera operated

scientifically as a ‘cine-eye’ (Nichols, 2010). Given the technology available at the time however

Vertov’s proposals were exaggerated in suggesting such a style could be used for anything more than

recording brief film sequences. To obtain ‘kino-pravda’ (film-truth) images with large static

equipment his early work sees very short scenes recorded, frequently from hidden locations, or later

with the use of telephoto lenses to show scenes ordinarily unavailable to human perception (as, for

example, from the top of a building or underneath a moving train in Man with a Movie Camera, 1929)

(see Feldman, 1977; Lawton, 1978; Latteier, 2002).

Living-camera. Many of the technological problems faced by Vertov seemed resolved

decades later in what is considered a breakthrough in ethnographic documentary – Drew Associates’

Primary (1960). This black and white film in the ‘living camera’ style saw the rationalism of film-

truth writ large. With support from Time-Life to develop light and mobile 16mm equipment, Robert

Drew was contracted to record the 1960 Wisconsin Primary, and specifically to track John F.

Kennedy’s campaign. With synchronized sound and vision, the filmmakers could now ‘walk in and

out of buildings, film in a taxi or limousine [and] get sound and pictures as events occurred’ (Leacock,

1992) and in so doing, the body is shown as naturally observed – as presenting its own truth (Nichols,

1991). The ethnographic story could now metaphorically ‘tell itself’, as the filmmakers intended to

offer no narrative other than the series of events leading to Kennedy’s victory. Instead the philosophy

of Primary was to present viewers with evidence they could ‘interpret themselves’ – the film would

depict but not judge (Cousins & Macdonald, 2006).

8

Personal video. Ethnographic filmmaking saw another paradigm shift with the advent of

video camera technology. This emerged in the 1980s with 8mm ‘camcorders’, which served to

synchronise sound and vision and technically unite them in a single apparatus. This made location

shooting a one rather than two person task, and also saw high-quality filmmaking technology become

widely available. The earliest devices were tape-based, but from the turn of the 21st century digital

recording saw tape replaced by storage media. Reflecting Robert Flaherty’s (1925) prophecy that ‘the

important filmmakers of the future will be amateurs’, commentators suggest this technology yielded

the type of images the pioneers of film-truth always sought – direct accounts that take us closer to the

aspiration of wielding the ‘camera pen’; where evidence is recorded as directly on film as it is written

on paper (see Murthy, 2008; Tabachnick, 2011). Recently digital video-making facilities in cell

phones have made this notion even more prescient, through facilitating concealed recording and the

express creation, sharing and distribution of moving images free from control over broadcasting

content by studio companies (for e.g. see Tehran Without Permission, 2009, directed by Sepideh

Farsi).

New Conceptual Logic – A Turn to Subjectivity and Reflexivity

‘There are two ways to conceive of the cinema of the Real: the first is to pretend that you can

present reality to be seen; the second is to pose the problem of reality’ (Morin, 1980, p. 1)

For making sense for example of organizational phenomena, film anthropologists have suggested that

customarily ‘the ethnographic film is undertheorized and underanalysed’ (Ruby, 1998, p. 1). Indeed

Bruzzi (2006, p. 2) makes a strong case that ‘theoretical writing on documentary has … not kept pace

with developments in critical and cultural theory’. To tackle this problem for organization studies we

begin by placing the implicit ‘truth’ assumptions of realist ethnographic documentary under critical

sociological scrutiny. In seeking to theorize film-based ethnography for an organization studies

audience, we ask whether it can ever represent a genuine manifestation of events. In other words, can

ethnographic documentary ever offer an objective lens on social, cultural and institutional issues when

editorial decisions involve concerns about the organizational world and how it is should be

represented? Having therefore discussed one element of the above quotation by Edgar Morin –

9

attempts by ethnographic documentary to present a ‘reality to be seen’ – we now consider the other;

how organizational ethnographic filmmakers can conceptualise ‘the problem of reality’.

Representation and ideology

While we have noted the Cartesian onto-epistemological assumptions underpinning many early

documentary philosophies – that notions of social reality reflect an independent sense of being –

current sociological thinking suggests such arguments are frequently as ‘illusory’ (Bruzzi, 2006) or

‘imaginary’ (Nichols, 2010) as those underpinning mainstream forms of filmmaking (Pink, 2013).

The question this raises for organizational research, therefore, is how to present ‘realistic’ issues of

work, occupations and institutions in video-based ethnographic form.

Contemporary film theory suggests that as documentaries are inevitably subject to a range of

editing and other post-production processes (for e.g. see Nelmes, 2012), their offerings inevitably

reflect the normative components of character, story and setting displayed in other visual genres

(Durington & Ruby, 2011). The argument goes that audiences for ethnographic documentary are

typically presented with the kind of analytic structure they would receive in mainstream film

entertainment (Banks, 2001). This is based on a simple habitual process in which defined

predicaments generate dramatic tensions that are inevitably resolved in conclusion. In other words, in

being so structured the organizational ethnographic film makes reference to reality that is always

imbued with significations (Nichols, 2010).

Other forms of modern sociological criticism highlight the role of ideology in organizational

ethnographic documentary. Arguments often relate to charges of the ‘constructed’ nature of film-

truth outputs. Thus the claim of early documentarists that their films were contracted because they

offered privileged access to ‘reality’ has become considered by many to be an ideological effect

(Bruzzi, 2006; Nichols, 2010). Instead, the suggestion from sociology – that ethnographic

documentary typically offers assembled forms of evidence – serves to destabilize notions that film-

truth somehow offers a superior social ethic (Heath, Hindmarsh & Luff, 2010). In this view, the

landmark films of Dziga Vertov, Robert Flaherty, and Robert Drew for example are charged with

10

offering access to a world rather than the world – they represent rather than reflect reality (Nichols,

1991, 2010).

Contemporary social theory suggests therefore that the truth claims of ethnographic

documentary correspond not so much to what we discern realistically about the world, but ways in

which the world can be interpreted via systems of elucidation and justification (Bruzzi, 2006;

Durington & Ruby, 2011; Nelmes, 2012). It is argued that the worlds of workers and managers, for

example, are brought to us through representational agencies (Pink, 2009, 2013). The organizational

world is accessed ethnographically via media which serve to structure, dramatize and reconstruct

everyday actions. As the ethnographic narrative takes form we are transported from fact to construct

through the medium of signification. Rather than a ‘mindless’ theory-neutral correspondence between

the empirical and perceptual – the ‘myth of transparency’ (Barthes, 1977) – filmic evidence becomes

shaped by arguments that rely on tactics and conventions for their execution (Pink, 2013). The

ontological realism the early ethnographic documentary filmmakers sought seems increasingly

outmoded in situations where reality is shaped by authorial judgments on what does or does not

justify being observed.

Embodiment and affect: Beyond the passive body

We are saying therefore that if we wish to explore possibilities for a more reflexive and contemplative

perspective on visual ethnographic accounts of organization then contemporary social theory offers a

way forward. Specifically we argue that sociological thinking from anti-structuralist or post-

structuralist (Hassard & Wolfram Cox, 2013) perspectives offers the means to theorize important new

insights for ethnographic documentary.

In constructing this argument we highlight two issues in particular that have aroused interest

among sociologists in recent years – embodiment (Farnell, 2013; Hindmarsh & Pilnick, 2007;

Wolkowitz, 2006) and affect (Brennan, 2004; Clough & Halley, 2007; Clough, 2008; Protevi, 2009;

Thrift, 2007) – and which serve to promote a greater sense of subjectivity in conceptualising the

practices and products of organizational ethnographic documentary. These issues have been of

11

increasing concern to those wishing to understand ethnographic experience of work and organization

(Dale, 2001; Cunliffe & Coupland, 2012). Drawing on interpretive and discursive thinking, we

highlight the importance of affect and embodiment for modern video-based organizational

ethnography and how these issues can be conceptualised, for example, dramaturgically,

phenomenologically, semiotically and narratively (Waskul & Vaninni, 2006). We discuss how such

concepts can provide the basis for a more reflexive understanding of video-based ethnography; as for

example in work on video-shadowing by the Montreal School (Cooren, 2015a, 2015b; Meunier, &

Vásquez, 2008; Vásquez, 2013), an approach which draws inspiration from relationist analysis in

post-structural theory (Goodwin. 2000; Heath, 1997; Heath & Luff, 2013; Mondada, 2003, 2006).

In post-structural theorising, for example, there has been much interest in work that examines

the relationship between ‘body and organization’ (Hassard, Holliday & Willmott, 2000; Lennie, 2000;

Turner, 2008) and seeks to place embodiment at the centre of the analytical stage (Goodwin, 2000;

Küpers, 2013; Styhre, 2004). Organization theorists have argued that mainstream analysis has tended

to ‘disembody the subject’ (Brewis & Sinclair, 2000), or else more marginalize the body as a medium

of analysis (Dale, 2005; Dale & Burrell, 2000; Ogden & Wakeman, 2013). Attempts have been made

to retrieve the body from the position of being a passive object of scientific inquiry to emphasise an

affective or subjective body (Benthall & Polhemus, 1975; Blacking, 1977; Csordas, 1994), as well as

stressing consideration of the multifarious character of bodily experience (Hindermarsh & Pilnick,

2007; Hockey, 2009; Riach & Warren, 2014).

We have described however that the tradition of realist ethnographic documentary

filmmaking has emphasised the essentially passive presence of the body, taking little account of its

often ‘contested’ (Holliday & Hassard, 2001) nature. This has led those interested in using film and

video to communicate social and cultural research to ‘look outside the conventions of ethnographic

and documentary film for models to discover a form appropriate for their purposes’ (Ruby, 1998, p.

1). The incarnation of characters in film-truth organizational documentary is disparaged in that it

often reflects, or even requires, a bland, clinical and routine sense of physical display and social

encounter: metaphorically to ‘reach out yet not touch someone’ (Nichols, 1991, p. 233; also see Pink,

2009). An assumption underpinning such work is that the bodies of workers or managers, for instance,

12

should be presented in a passive, taken-for-granted manner; as expressively commonplace, or even

‘flat’ (Aitken, 1998).

In terms of body images in such productions, Harry Watt’s celebrated 1936 GPO Film Unit

production Night Mail – a film concerning the Royal Mail delivery train service between London and

Scotland – provides a ready example of a visually passive and essentially disembodied organizational

documentary. The stilted images of workers and supervisors, augmented by the ‘received

pronunciation’ voiceover narration, suggest a sense of detachment, aloofness, and impassivity. While

at the time Watt and colleagues experimented innovatively with sound, visual style and editing

(Winston, 1995), the film largely portrays workers as mere physical bodies; their agency as mere

mechanical activity (see Figure 1). In Night Mail, which is one of the best known film-truth

documentaries, the postal service is constructed as a formal, functional and prescribed chain of

operations through which the collecting and delivering of mail is accomplished routinely and

unproblematically 24 hours a day. By visually signifying employees’ physicality as a constant and

integral component of the mechanics of the Royal Mail, the body is ‘present and yet absent’ (Waskul

& Vaninni, 2006). Images of a secure body symbolize the immutable and invulnerable qualities of

the state’s mail service together with the passivity of the pre-World War 2 British working class.

Consequently, the representation of the mechanistic body as fixed and stable serves to ‘flatten’

(Aitken, 1998) any sense of contradiction, ambiguity or difference, thus obscuring the multifarious

relationships between the body and embodiment in the sense of a person’s affective experiencing, or

living through the body (Dale, 2005).

Figure 1. Body images from Night Mail (1936).

13

Notions of body and embodiment have of course been conceptualised in multiple ways by

different disciplines. Forms of medical knowledge for example have constructed the body primarily as

a physical and biological object. In the social sciences, on the other hand, embodiment is

conceptualised in terms of affective aspects of human subjectivity – my or your body as I or you

experience it. The argument is that individuals experience their body as a capacity for doing – a way

of living through the acculturated body. This is a process through which the body, as physical object,

is experienced, produced, sustained and transformed as affective subject (Riach & Warren, 2014). As

Waskul and van der Riet (2002, p. 488) suggest, a person ‘does not “inhabit” a static object body’ but

is ‘subjectively embodied in a fluid, emergent and negotiated process of being’. In this sense, the

body, the self, and our social interactions are experienced in a manner whereby ‘distinctions between

them are not only permeable and shifting but also actively manipulated and configured’ (Waskul and

van der Riet, 2002, p. 488). Hence the body and embodiment emerge from each other: it is through

the affective and emotional body that we perform, express and present subjectivity to others in terms

of ‘meanings and effects’ (Meyer et al, 2013, p.522). Yet through the same activities others also judge

our body as object, by means of appearance and performance. The body is thus both subject and

object, or as Waskul and Vaninni (2006, p. 2) argue, the ‘affective body’ and ‘experiences of

embodiment’ are ‘layered, nuanced, complex, and multifaceted’ at the level of ‘human subjective

experience, interaction, social organization, institutional arrangements, cultural processes, society, and

history’.

While these arguments are taken from contemporary social theory, in film studies writers

have started to express similar sentiments (Bell & Davison, 2013). Film theorists have called, in

particular, for filmmaking styles that produce subjects who are ‘multiple’, ‘split’ and ‘layered’

(Friedberg, 2006), or else for ‘fluid’ (Marchessault & Lord, 2007) productions that analyse

organizational contradictions and paradoxes through enlightened and enlightening ethnographic

documentary (Pink, 2013). Thus modern ethnographic films that seek to analyse work and

occupations, institutions and organizations must call attention, necessarily, to representing the body

and embodiment in multiple ways (Bruzzi, 2006; Pink, 2009). Signally they must stress the proactive

over the passive; the processual over the permanent (Carel & Tuck, 2011). Our argument therefore is

14

that social theory which highlights qualities of human affect and the cultural production of

embodiment can offer insightful resources for representing the subject and experiencing subjectivity

through ethnographic organizational documentary.

Theorizing subjectively

Although a number of interpretive and reflexive theories have been deployed to conceptualise the

body sociologically (Dale, 2001; Pink, 2009; Turner, 2008), we have noted that of particular

prominence are contributions from dramaturgical, phenomenological, semiotic and narrative analyses

(Waskul & Vaninni, 2006). It can be argued that these positions offer established sociological

frameworks from which to conceptualise subjectivity and reflexivity in visual ethnographies of

organization. Our suggestion therefore is that insights from these perspectives can help us

conceptualise a more nuanced sense of affect and embodiment in video-based research investigations.

For filmmaking logic that reflects greater appreciation of affectivity and embodiment the value of

these positions can be summarised as follows:

The dramaturgical body is embedded in social practices and can thus offer a corrective to the

traditional passive assumptions of ethnographic documentary, which suggest that social bodies ‘just

are’ (Nichols, 1991). In the dramaturgical view, the body is central to human identity, social relations

and emotional display; it is represented in ways that are variously personal and communal, private and

public, confidential and political. For social and organizational settings, the classic symbolic

interactionist work of Erving Goffman (1959) emphasised that bodies are always performed, staged

and presented. People do not just have a body but actively present or do a body. It is therefore in the

presenting and doing that actors are embodied; an active process through which the body is realised

and made meaningful.

In the phenomenological body, the focus is again on meaning but with greater emphasis on

being as embedded in experience: the body as a corporeal anchor in the world yet concerned with

consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. Affective experience of the

self is realised through numerous forms of meaning, both literal and metaphorical. In this view,

‘thick’ (Geertz, 1973) descriptions of lived experience reveal how the life-worlds of individuals and

15

groups are produced and reproduced. Reflecting Schutz’s (1967) notions of ‘because’ and ‘in order to’

motives, the framework conceptualises the body as constituting the demands of self and society, yet

characterized by activities organized by outcome-orientated actions immersed in goals external to the

body (McCloskey, 1988). Such assumptions can be clearly differentiated from our earlier analysis of

visual realism and its overtones of Cartesianism, seeing the organized world as a set of objects which

act and react upon one another.

The semiotic body is produced and acted upon mainly through culture and discourse (Casey,

2000; Nixon, Hall & Evans, 2013; see also Foucault, 2006), with the conceptual emphasis reflecting

forces of sign and symbol (Howson, 2005). Given the ‘cognitive turn’ in semiotics, the corporality of

signs in human semiosis became an important focus of sociological attention, and notably in film

studies (Nelmes, 2012). It is apparent for example in verbal, nonverbal, and paralinguistic

communication, where the human body is the embodiment of signs (Buckland, 2007). The body is

therefore configured and re-configured through multiple representations of identity as related to the

effects of discursive power, where the body can be socially constructed as a site of emancipation or

resistance (Goodwin, 2003). Notions of normalisation are central to such analysis as ‘people

undertake their own corrective espaliering of the body to fit self into the needs of the organization’

(Dale & Burrell 2014, p. 172). This self-corrective phenomenon is an effect of the way discursive

power acts on the body in forms that are at once material, sensual and symbolic.

And the narrative body is situated in reflexive stories we tell about our bodies, and those

others tell about their bodies and the bodies of others. Auerbach (2000) for example in his analysis of

‘repetition, recursion and the body’ in early cinema illustrates how the notion of person is a narrative

accomplishment bestowing a sense of coherence; that is, it becomes structured by language, grammar

and syntax, as well as by social, cultural and institutional discourse. Narrative for instance is

suggested as a form of ‘working subjectivity’ and a site of ‘discursive struggle between narratives of

the self and institutional discourses which frame our (embodied) subjectivity’ (Waskul & Vaninni,

2006, p. 12). The narrative study of the body conceptualises the embodied self as a set of stories we

negotiate, struggle against, create, and of which we ultimately live out the consequences (Denzin

1989).

16

In addition, writing on a range of aesthetic issues (Ewenstein & Whyte, 2007; Sørensen,

2010; Warren, 2008) has placed emphasis on affective and embodied experience, or work

demonstrating a greater sense of ‘bodily intensity’ (Deleuze, 1994). Writers on film theory for

example have stressed the need for ‘sensory ethnography’ (Pink, 2009, 2011, 2013) of a multifarious

kind in contemporary visual research, as have anthropological filmmakers themselves (see for

instance Dargis, 2010; Hoare, 2013; Sweeney, 2009). Social theorists have advocated perspectives

reflecting similar affective and embodied practices (Clough & Halley, 2007; Clough, 2008; Thrift,

2007), while cultural anthropologists have offered analogous views on sense perception processes

(Brennan, 2004; McGrail, Davie-Kessler & Gruffin, 2015; Protevi, 2009). Closer to home, writers in

organization studies have suggested the need for innovation and creativity in embodied and affective

analysis (Dale & Burrell, 2014; Lennie, 2000; Riach &Warren, 2014). In other words, scholars from

a number of fields have advocated approaches to ethnographic-related research that seek to

‘problematize’ and ‘challenge’ traditional or mainstream assumptions of what constitutes real

organizational experience (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013); or to underscore experience that is “dynamic

and energetic … rife with possibilities to produce ‘new’ and ‘emergent’ phenomena” (McGrail,

Davie-Kessler & Gruffin, 2015, p. 4).

We suggest therefore numerous innovative ways to conceptualise affect and embodiment in

video-based organizational ethnography – modes of expression that move us beyond habitual realist,

objectivist and Cartesian assumptions. Nichols (1991) has argued, for example, that bodily

representation through film and video can be prefigured through overlapping conceptual axes –

narrative/anti-narrative and history/reflexivity. It is similarly through our infusion of diverse

conceptualisations of affect and embodiment that we can provide guidance on developing more

innovative practices, styles and visions for film-based ethnographic organization research. As Pink

(2009, 2013) has argued, the aim of such research is to encapsulate a plurality of components in

communicating visual ethnographic messages.

New Methodological Opportunities – Realising Participatory Research

17

‘As participatory video often aims to reveal hidden social relations and provoke collective

action, it may be regarded as a sociological intervention’ (Milne et al., 2012, p. 8)

Our argument is that forms of ethnographic research underpinned by a range of interpretive, reflexive

and other sociological perspectives can contribute to organization studies in non-textual ways; that is,

in visual texts we ‘read’ instinctively. In practice, this can take a multimodal (Iedema & Wodak,

1999; Meyer et al., 2013) form and serve to document various ways in which ‘talk, gesture, gaze, and

aspects of the material surround are brought together’ (Stivers & Sidnell, 2005, p. 1). The analysis

which results reflects the influence of a range of visual, aural and theoretical stimuli in inquiry where

a viewer’s own affective reactions can become part of the investigative process – a situation where we

gain a greater sense of subjective involvement in understanding the research setting and its meaning.

This sees an emphasis on emic rather than etic research practice (Morris, Leung, Ames & Lickel,

1999).

The philosophy behind the type of video-based investigations we have in mind is akin to what

Shotter (2006, p.585) has described as ‘thinking from within’. In traditional Cartesian logic the

suggestion is that orthodox practice orients us toward ‘thinking from the outside’ and on issues we

observe ‘over there’. The kind of visual organizational inquiry we advocate, however, involves

abandoning such exterior philosophies and arguing that a more engaged form of investigation is

appropriate to participatory visual research – a form which allows us to ‘affect the flow of processes’

from ‘within our living involvement with them’ (Shotter, 2006, p. 585). This kind of engaged and

reflexive understanding is only available when we enter into what Shotter terms ‘dialogical’ social

interaction: in other words, it remains unavailable to us as external observers and only becomes

accessible when we adopt a mentality of ‘withness-thinking’, rather than the more familiar

‘monological’ or ‘aboutness-thinking’ of mainstream social research. As Polanyi (1958) suggested

similarly, what we gain from ‘understanding-from-within’ is awareness of ‘action guiding feelings’;

or else in Schutz’s (1967) terms, feelings that offer an anticipatory sense of the contextual ‘style’ or

‘grammar’ of what is to come (Shotter, 2006). Phenomenologically, this reflects qualities of the

existential processes with which we are involved, and above all the intimate, affective and embodied

feelings that can be lost in descriptions ‘from the outside’.

18

In developing such proposals, we have drawn not only upon our own expertise as a team of

sociologists-cum-filmmakers, but also from consulting other professionals in the course of this

conceptual but also practical investigation. Our aim is to promote inquiry that reflects the progressive

participation of filmmakers, sociologists, participants and ultimately viewers when researching issues

of organization. We wish to achieve a more ‘democratic’ (Ohanian & Phillips, 2013) logic of

investigation for ethnographic filmmaking – one that connects stakeholders polyvocally in common

analytical space. We address therefore the recent challenge to develop ‘new forms’

(Smets, Burke, Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2014) of organizational ethnography through advancing a

method that avoids the ‘blindspots’ (Bell & Davison, 2012) of traditional documentary. A by-product

of this project is for audiences to become engaged more interactively in the research process, a

situation whereby they begin to understand more fully, for example, the life-worlds of workers and

managers, producers and consumers through greater appreciation of the subjective side of

organization (Clough & Halley, 2007).

Towards participatory visual inquiry

Recently an interest in ‘bringing actors back in’ (Eder, 2009) has brought ethnographic research to the

fore in organization studies (Smets et al., 2014). This has generated requests for innovative methods

in organizational ethnography (Van Maanen, 2011; Watson, 2011) by researchers in fields as diverse

as institutional analysis (Kellogg, 2009; Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, 2012), the sociology of finance

(Knorr-Cetina & Bruegger, 2002b; Preda, 2007, 2009), strategy as practice (Jarzabkowski, 2005,

2008; Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2011; Vaara & Whittington, 2012), and technology studies (Leonardi,

2011; Orlikowski, 1996, 2007). With this in mind we argue for abandoning onto-epistemological

realism in ethnographic documentary in favour of anti-structural and post-structural theorising that

places emphasis on affect and embodiment.

We argue that ‘withness’ inquiry is invaluable here for encouraging often disempowered or

marginalized organizational actors to participate in visual research related to everyday experiences

(see for instance Elder, 1995; Fine, 1992; Pink, 2013). The objective is to complement conventional

non-participant ethnographic documentary with methods that allow for more ‘detailed analysis of

19

practices … in their sociomaterial context’ (Vesa & Vaara, 2014, p. 288). The goal is to bring

together organization theorists, filmmakers and research participants in generating field work, with

this logic seeing key issues discussed subsequently with viewers and audiences in the process of

analysing data and making practical recommendations.

In methodological terms, we argue that recent technological developments, coupled with

increased familiarity with filmmaking practices, have facilitated moves towards less ‘obtrusive’

(Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966) forms of visual inquiry. This has seen digital

innovations bring ethnographic documentary nearer to what filmmakers long considered the

technological holy-grail – the ‘camera pen’. When considered alongside the greater availability of

editing software and possibilities for social media distribution, the means of making an ethnographic

documentary are increasingly within the public’s grasp. In short, much of the conceptual and technical

apparatus required to realize intimate, affective and participatory work appears in place (Wiebe, 2015;

see also Bell & Davidson, 2013; Bell, Warren & Schroeder, 2013). Indeed contributors to the

Handbook of Participatory Video (Milne et al., 2012) have argued variously for promoting the kind of

historically suppressed participant involvement we have in mind in ‘critical research’ emphasising

‘affect’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘reflexivity’ and which promotes ‘learning from communities’,

‘reaching new audiences’ and ‘fostering social change’.

Participatory filmmaking and research opportunities

Building a bridge from social theory to visual analysis, our own participatory work has been directed

at realising theoretically-infused video-based contributions to ‘critical’ (Adler, Forbes & Willmott,

2007; Alvesson & Willmott 1993, 2003) and ‘dark side’ (see for instance Linstead, Marechal &

Griffin, 2014) organization studies. In these productions, ‘classical’ organizational concerns of

bureaucracy and scientific management for example are analysed in connection to contemporary

issues of surveillance management, work intensification and corporate ideology (see e.g.

https://vimeo.com/70846837). Such films contribute critically through deploying post-structural

‘mimicry’ (after Irigaray, 1991) to ‘escap(e) the confines of organization theory’ (Hassard, Kelemen

& Wolfram Cox, 2008, p. 31). The result is film-based analyses that play with assumed boundaries

20

between fact and fiction (see Bordell & Carroll, 1996; Carroll, 1996; Hight, 2010; Juhasz and Lerner,

2006; Rhodes, 2006). Issues of subjectivity, affect and embodiment are central to work that reflects

interpretive perspectives discussed earlier – dramaturgy, phenomenology, semiotics and narrative.

The products of cooperation between filmmakers and sociologists, on the one hand the professional

quality of these films would have been impossible to realise without the expertise of the filmmakers

while, on the other, narratives of organizational control, occupational stress and workplace alienation

would have been difficult to conceptualise without the expertise of social and organization theorists.

Equally, our current empirical work is directed at promoting opportunities for participatory

inquiry in visual and textual ethnographic fieldwork. From an observation- and interview-based study

of care homes (see Burns, Hyde & Killett, 2013; Hyde, Burns, Hassard & Killett, 2014), we gained

access to document the experiences, thoughts and feelings of residents, care workers, managers and

relatives. The case represented an opportunity to study a complex situation of multiple, often

competing, perspectives. Given the plethora of recent scandals in this ‘care’ sector – many of which

have been exposed by film-based observation (see for instance Dugan, 2014) – we argue that the

elderly body and its professional treatment represents a prime topic for analysis among ‘things

[which] might be meant by “critical”’ (Fournier & Grey, 2000, p. 8). In this research the concept is

again to marry the expertise of filmmaker and social theorist. To offer genuinely polyvocal

interpretations of emotions, feelings and perceptions, in what can be extremely sensitive organizations

to access for research, we have argued for eliciting additional voices in the research process (Sayad,

2013). A more ‘progressive’ (Alvesson & Willmott, 1996) form of research partnership in such

locations involves not only accessing the phenomenological and dramaturgical experiences of

residents, but also those of care workers and managers: in other words, contrasting various

stakeholder perspectives in the process of agreeing the research agenda, how to collect data, and ways

to present analysis. The research philosophy is that filmmakers, organization theorists and participants

should come ideally to inhabit a common reflexive space for interpretive inquiry – a methodology

which moves us from a two- to three-pronged form of research association, or what might be termed a

new form of ‘investigator triangulation’ (Denzin, 2006).

21

This raises the possibility of realising other innovations for interpretive and reflexive

organizational research. In addition to participants joining sociologists and filmmakers to define the

research agenda, advances in technology present opportunities for them to be more fully involved in

data collection. Video-based information can be gleaned by participants armed with their own digital

technology – such as camera phones or web cams – and thus acting metaphorically as their own ‘auto-

ethnographic’ view-finders (Vesa & Vaara, 2014; see also Karra & Phillips, 2008), with this serving

to provide rich and affective experience [3]. Such participatory inquiries; where the traditional

‘subjects’ of research are now trained in basic video-making skills, signal a role-shift for the

professional filmmaker; whose responsibilities now lie mainly in production and realising an

intelligible cinematic form, which is customarily their specialism (Milne et al., 2012).

Building on arguments developed earlier in the paper, the methodological approach we

propose advocates providing communicative spaces that facilitate progressively ‘polyvocal’ forms of

organizational analysis (Arnold & Brennan, 2013; Tobin & Davidson, 2006); signally, dialogues

between filmmakers, social/organizational theorists, and research participants. We argue that this

represents ‘withness thinking’ in emphasising possibilities for diverse conceptualisation, multiple

forms of representation and pluralistic discourse, while also stressing a spirit of connectedness

between the parties involved. The idea is for filmmaker, theorist and participant coming together to

realise visually ‘rich’ (Weis, Cipollone & Jenkins, 2014) images of relevance to organizational themes

– ethnographically complex and sensitive images that cannot be replicated in written accounts (Meyer

et al., 2013).

As also argued, central to advancing this method is achieving a sense of ‘reflexivity’

(Alvesson, Hardy, & Harley, 2008; Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Cunliffe, 2003) in the consumption

of the visual product. Ironically we can make reference here to a documentary discussed in Part One,

Rouch and Morin’s Chronique d'un été. Although very much in the ‘realist’ style, a novel and

atypical feature of the filmmaking process was that participants were invited – post-production and as

members of an audience – to view the finished film and express opinions on what was presented.

Albeit a seemingly unconscious form of participatory inquiry, Chronique d'un été nonetheless

anticipates a sense of reflexivity in visual ethnography (Yang, 2012). Indeed it goes someway to

22

anticipating the type of withness thinking we have in mind – adopting reflexive post-production

practices which generate affective responses and involve participants assessing the research and its

product (Mak, 2012). Such inquiry can also see video-based methods combined with, for example,

observations, photographs and interviews to provide a variety of inputs to a research investigation (see

for instance Meyer et al., 2013; Olivier, de Lange, Creswell, and Wood, 2012). Visual research

may also be embedded in written forms, as suggested recently by some academic journals in business

and management.

We have suggested that video-based ethnography be underpinned by social theory appropriate

to the topics under investigation, and also that participatory ethnography be undergirded by

interpretive, reflexive and other forms of theorising; for example, phenomenological, dramaturgical,

semiotic, and narrative. In our research on care homes, such perspectives are deployed to highlight,

inter alia, sites of resistance against institutional practices, normative self-correction processes, or the

accommodation of habitual organizational requirements (Rosile, Boje, Carlon, Downs & Saylors,

2013). Rather than generate a single discursive alternative in ethnographic documentary – another

form of film-truth – our approach offers a range of analytical opportunities for an organizational

research team to consider when framing visual explanations (see for instance Bordell & Carroll, 1996;

Carroll, 1996). In our current empirical work, for example, a ‘body as narrative’ view suggests that

video-based research can vividly capture the many discursive struggles that managers and workers,

relatives and residents, engage in to produce a discourse of the (primarily aged) body. Drawing on

Foucault’s (1979) notion of the semiotic body as a ‘trace of culture’, one possibility is to capture the

espaliering of embodiment (Dale & Burrell, 2014) and how through such ‘capturing’ the subject

gradually submits to the needs of the organization, or alternatively resists such colonising processes.

A final extension of this argument is that our method is underpinned by assumptions related

to another concept mentioned earlier – multimodality (Iedema & Wodak, 1999; Meyer et al., 2013;

Stivers & Sidnell, 2005). Kress (2010), for example, has argued that communication is multimodal

and the concept of multimodality offers practical ways to conceptualise the various visual

opportunities for representing affect and embodiment in material and experiential terms (see for

instance Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001). For the former, such opportunities may reflect, among others,

23

practical factors of image, lighting, perspective and sound (Pink, 2009, 2013). For the latter, they

may reflect various verbal and non-verbal factors within inter-subjective communication (Riach &

Warren, 2014). When everyday action is interpreted by participants themselves, the narration may

reflect an ‘inner dialogue’, or bodily sensing in ways not mediated by explication from an ‘outsider’.

Some filmmakers (and musicians and sound artists) for example have gone as far as to locate

microphones internal to the body to capture aspects of deep corporeal experience.

Therefore, a strategy of participatory visual research, underpinned conceptually by ‘withness

thinking’, is suggested for demonstrating, explaining and potentially disrupting social, cultural and

institutional relations in organizations (De Lange, Mitchell & Stuart, 2008). This strategy takes

recourse explicitly to a range of sociological concepts for interpreting visual ethnographic data in a

participatory mode. This strategy may serve to encourage social change, as it unlocks possibilities for

alternative modes of inquiry, interpretation and representation, while similarly confronting a diverse

range of ethical and power-related organizational concerns.

Conclusion

When analysing ethnographic documentary, film studies academics have historically emphasised

realist and objectivist philosophies. In contrast, we argue they have overlooked a set of philosophies

that are of equal or greater importance for making sense of visual studies of organization – ones based

on interpretivism and reflexivity, and underpinned by perspectives such as dramaturgy,

phenomenology, semiotics and narratology. These perspectives hold advantages for modern

ethnographic documentary in that they stress the inevitably affective and embodied character of

organizational life, notably through analysis which stresses human sensitivity, feeling and emotion.

The paper is not restricted however to arguing for a ‘visual turn’ merely in the way we conceptualise

the ethnographic organizational documentary. Although this is one of our aims, the article also offers

methodological and empirical suggestions in concert with developing research potential in

organization studies generally. This takes the form of an innovative participatory strategy for

qualitative research that emphasises reflexivity and ‘withness thinking’. In seeking to champion the

subjective and embodied qualities of ethnographic documentary, like the realism of film-truth this

24

strategy attempts to get 'closer’ to the subjects of inquiry. Where it differs is in joining expertise for

the polyvocal framing and participatory investigative process – a strategy that moves us progressively

towards an emic method for video-based organizational ethnography. The end result is organizational

research in which filmmakers, social theorists, participants and viewers alike are brought together in

the same analytical space.

Notes

[1] Although this paper focuses on film- and video-based forms, we acknowledge that they represent

only a sub-set of the range of visual research topics and methods that can be drawn upon in

organizational ethnography. The ethnographic study of the visual can also include, for example, work

relating to drawings, graphics, photographs, pictures, and signs. It includes new visual data produced

by researchers in empirical investigations as well as existing visual materials used, for example, in

historical and sociological analysis (for overviews see Bell & Davison, 2012; Emmison & Smith,

2000; Margolis & Pauwels, 2011; Meyer, et al., 2013; Ray & Smith, 2012; Rose, 2011; Spencer,

2011).

[2] Despite being regularly categorized as forms of ‘film-truth’ documentary, such approaches can

reflect important methodological differences, and notably so regarding the role of the filmmaker in

relation to action. Whereas the philosophically detached living camera or direct cinema filmmaker

(for example, Richard Leacock, Donn Pennebaker, or more recently, Roger Graef, Dianne Tammes or

Paul Watson) stands by in the hope that something dramatic will occur – the metaphoric fly-on-the-

wall – the filmmaker in the cinéma vérité style (for example, Rouch & Morin, or more recently, Nick

Broomfield, Joan Churchill or Molly Dineen) purposefully intervenes in the hope that action will be

stimulated and ‘hidden’ layers of reality revealed – the metaphoric fly-in-the-soup approach (see

Armstrong, 2006; Barnett, 2007; Bruzzi, 2006; Cousins & Macdonald, 2006).

25

[3] This discussion resonates with recent debates on the use of body-worn video cameras by police

officers, an issue that has been highlighted recently due to a number of high-profile civilian shootings

by the United States police. It is expected that the majority of front line police officers in the UK will

soon be equipped with body-worn video cameras.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank those participants to the ‘What’s Wrong with This Picture? Film as a Catalyst

for Change – Five Years On’ session at the 2015 Academy of Management meeting, Vancouver, who

offered feedback on both an earlier draft of this paper and the short film Automaton.

References

Adler, P., Forbes, L., & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 119-179.

Aitken, I. (1990). Film and reform: John Grierson and the documentary film movement. London: Routledge.

Aitken, I. (1998). The documentary film movement: The post office touches all branches of life. In J. Hassard & R. Holliday (Eds.), Organization/representation: Work and organizations in popular culture. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 480-501.

Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.) (1992). Critical management studies. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.) (2003). Studying management critically. London: Sage.

Armes, R. (1966). French cinema since 1946. Vol II: The personal style. Amsterdam: Ellerman Harms.

Armstrong, S. (2006). Candid cameraman. The Guardian, 20 November.

Arnold, C., & Brennan, C. (2013). Polyvocal ethnography as a means of developing inter-cultural understanding of pedagogy and practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21, 353-369.

Auerbach, J. (2000). Chasing film narrative: Repetition, recursion, and the body in early cinema. Critical Inquiry, 26, 798-820.

26

Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage.

Banks, M., & Ruby, J. (Eds.) (2013). Made to be seen: Perspectives on the history of visual anthropology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Barnett, L. (2007). Portrait of the artist: Nick Broomfield, documentary-maker. The Guardian, 9 November.

Barnouw, F. (1975). Documentary: A history of the non-fiction film. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barnwell, J. (2008). Fundamentals of filmmaking practice. London: Fairchild Books.

Barsam, R. (1992). The non-fiction film. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image music text. London: Fontana.

Bell, E., & Davison, J. (2013). Visual management studies: Empirical and theoretical approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 167-184.

Bell, E., Warren, S., & Schroeder, J. (Eds.) (2013). The Routledge companion to visual organization. London: Routledge.

Beller, J. (2006) The cinematic mode of production: Attention economy and the society of the spectacle. Lebanon, NH: Dartmouth College Press.

Benthall, J., & Polhemus, T. (1975). The body as a medium of expression. New York: Dutton.

Berlatsky, N. (2013). Selfies are Art, The Atlantic, 22 November. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/selfies-are-art/281772/

Blacking, J. (1977). The anthropology of the body. New York: Academic Press.

Bordell, D. & Carroll, H. (Eds.) (1996). Post-theory: Reconstructing film studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Brennan, T. (2004). The transmission of affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Brewis, J., & Sinclair, J. (2000). Exploring embodiment: Women, biology and work. In J. Hassard, R. Holliday, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Body and Organization (pp. 192-214). London: Sage.

Bruzzi, S. (2006). New documentary. New York: Routledge, 2nd Edition.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, D., & Bryman, A. (2007). Contextualizing methods choice in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 483-501.

Buckland, W. (2007). The cognitive semiotics of film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, D., Hyde, K. & Killett, A. (2013) Wicked people or wicked problems? Reconceptualising institutional abuse. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35, 514-528.

27

Calás, M., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 649-671.

Carel, H., & Tuck, G. (Eds.) (2011). New takes in film-philosophy. London: Palgrave.

Carroll, J., & Choi, J. (Eds.) (2006). Philosophy of film and motion pictures: An anthology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Carroll, N. (1996). Theorizing the moving image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Casey, C. (2000). Sociology sensing the body: Revitalizing a dissociative discourse. In J. Hassard, R. Holliday, & H. Willmott. (Eds.), Body and Organization (pp. 52-70). London: Sage.

Christie, I. (2007). Disbelieving documentary: Rouch viewed through the binoculars of Marker & Ruiz. In J. Brink (Ed.), Building bridges: The cinema of Jean Rouch (pp. 267-76). London: Wallflower Press. 

Clough, P. (2008). The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia and bodies. Theory, Culture & Society, 25, 1-22.

Clough, P., & Halley, J. (2007). The affective turn: theorizing the social. Durham: Duke University Press.

Cockburn, C. (2015). Olivetti and the Missing Third: Fashion, Working Women and Images of the Mechanical-flâneuse in the 1920s and 1930s. Fashion Theory, 19, 637-686.

Cooren, F. (2015a). Organizational Discourse: Communication and Constitution. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Cooren, F. (2015b). In Medias Res: Communication, Existence and Materiality. Communication Research and Practice, 1, 307-321.

Corner, J. (2005). Television, documentary and the category of the aesthetic. In A. Rosenthal & J. Corner (Eds.), New Challenges for Documentary, 2nd edition (pp. 48-58). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Cousins, M., & Macdonald, K. (Eds.) (2006). Imagining reality. London: Faber.

Csordas, T. J. (1994). Embodiment and experience: the existential ground of culture and self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cunliffe, A. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56, 983-1003.

Cunliffe, A. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28, 407 - 426.

Cunliffe, A. (2009). Retelling tales of the field: In search of organizational ethnography 20 years on. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 224-239.

Cunliffe, A., & Coupland, C. (2012). From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations, 65, 63-88.

28

Dale, K. (2001). Anatomising embodiment and organisation theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dale, K. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, 649-678.

Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2000). What shape are we in? Organization theory and the organized body. In J. Hassard, R. Holliday & H. Willmott (Eds.), Body and Organization (pp. ). London: Sage.

Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2014). Being occupied: An embodied re-reading of organizational ‘wellness’. Organization, 21, 159-177.

Dargis, M. (2010). Montana cowboys lead, coax and cajole their charges amid a chorus of bleats. New York Times. 5 January. Retrieved at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/movies/06sweet.html?_r=0

Day, E. (2013). How selfies became a global phenomenon. The Observer, 14 July. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/14/how-selfies-became-a-global-phenomenon

De Lange, N., Mitchell, C., & Stuart, J. (2008). Putting people in the picture: Visual methodologies for social change. London: Sage.

Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretive biography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological methods: A Sourcebook. New York: Aldine.

Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. London: Athlone.

Dugan, E. (2014). Elderly care home abuse: Shocking footage shows elderly residents being taunted and assaulted at Essex care home, The Independent, 30 April. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shocking-footage-shows-elderly-residents-being-taunted-and-abused-at-essex-care-home-9303888.html

Durington, M., & Ruby, J. (2011). Ethnographic film. In M. Banks & J. Ruby (Eds.), Made to be seen: Perspectives on the history of visual anthropology (pp. 190-208). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Eaton, M. (Ed.) (1979). Anthropology-reality-cinema. London: BFI.

Eder, K. (2009). Rational action, communicative action and the narrative structure of social life. In S. Tuama (Ed.), Critical turns in critical theory (pp. 63-79). New York: Palgrave.

Elder, S. (1995). Participatory filmmaking: An open space for making meaning. A moral ground for ethnographic film. Visual Anthropology Review, 11, 94-101.

Emmison, M. and Smith, P. (2000). Researching the visual: Images, objects, contexts and interactions in social and cultural inquiry. London: Sage.

Ewenstein, B. & Whyte, J. (2007) Beyond words: Aesthetic knowledge and knowing in organizations. Organization Studies, 28, 689-708.

Farnell, B. (2013). Theorizing ‘the body’ in visual culture. In M. Banks, & J, Ruby. (Eds.), Made to be seen: Perspectives on the history of visual anthropology (pp. 136-158). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

Feldman, S. (1977). Evolution of Style in the Early Work of Dziga Vertov. New York: Arno Press.

29

Fetveit, A. (1999). Reality TV in the digital era: A paradox in visual culture? Media, Culture and Society, 21, 787-804.

Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (2006). Psychiatric power: Lectures at the Collège de France 1973-1974. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for Critical Management Studies. Human Relations, 53, 7–32.

Friedberg, A. (2006). The virtual window: From Alberti to Microsoft. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers. London: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.

Goodwin, C. (2003). The body in action. In J. Coupland and R. Gwyn (Eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity (pp. 19-42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Grierson, J. (1966). Grierson on documentary. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Harper, D. (2013). Visual sociology: An introduction. London: Routledge.

Hassard, J., Holliday, R., & Willmott, H. (2000). Body and organization. London: Sage

Hassard, J., Kelemen, M., & Wolfram Cox, J. (2008). Disorganization theory: Explorations in alternative organizational analysis. London: Routledge.

Hassard, J. & Wolfram Cox, J. (2013). Can sociological paradigms still inform organizational analysis? A paradigm model for post-paradigm times. Organization Studies, 34, 1701-1728.

Heath, C. (1986). Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, C. (1988). Embarrassment and interactional organization. In P. Drew & A. Wootton, (Eds.), Erving Goffman: exploring the interaction order (pp.136-60). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heath, C. (1989). Pain talk: the expression of suffering in the medical consultation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 113-25.

Heath, C. (1997). Analysing work activities in face to face interaction using film. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 183-200). London: Sage.

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Film in qualitative research. London: Sage.

30

Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2013). Embodied action and organizational interaction: Establishing contact on the strike of a hammer. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 24-38.

Hibbert, P., Coupland, C., & MacIntosh, R. (2010). Reflexivity: recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5, 47 – 62.

Hibbert, P., Sillince, J., Diefenbach, T., & Cunliffe, A. (2014). Relationally reflexive practice: A generative approach to theory development in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 278-298.

Hight, C. (2010). Television mockumentary. Reflexivity, satire and a call to play. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2007). Knowing bodies at work: Embodiment and ephemeral teamwork in anesthesia. Organization Studies, 28, 1395-1416.

Hoare, P. (2013). Leviathan: the film that lays bare the apocalyptic world of fishing. The Guardian, 18 November. Retrieved at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/18/leviathan-fishing-film-moby-dick

Hockey, J. (2009). ‘Switch on’: Sensory work in the infantry. Work Employment and Society, 23, 477-493.

Holliday, R., & Hassard, J. (2001). Contested Bodies. London: Routledge.

Howson, A. (2005). Embodying gender. London: Sage.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2003). Researching organizational practice through action research: Case studies and design choices. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 383-403.

Hyde, P., Burns, D., Hassard, J., & Killett, A. (2014) Colonizing the aged body and the organization of later life. Organization Studies, 35, 1699-1717.

Iedema, R. & Wodak, R. (1999). Organizational discourses and practices. Discourse & Society, 10, 5-19.

Irigaray, L. (1991). Philosophy in the feminine. Oxford: Blackwell.

Issari, M., & Paul, D. (1979). What is cinéma vérité? Methuen NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Jameson, F. (2011). Brecht and method. London & New York: Verso.

Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London: Sage.

Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 621-650.

Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding management research. London: Sage.

Juhasz, A., & Lerner, J. (Eds.) (2006). F is for phony. Fake documentary and truth’s undoing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

31

Karra, N., & Phillips, N. (2008). ‘Researching back home’. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 541–61.

Kellogg, K. (2009). Operating Room: Relational Spaces and Microinstitutional Change in Surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 657-711.

Knorr-Cetina, K., & Bruegger, U. (2002a). Global microstructures: The virtual societies of financial markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 905-950.

Knorr-Cetina, K., & Bruegger, U. (2002b). Traders’ engagement with markets: QA postsocial relationship. Theory, Culture & Society, 19, 161-185.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media ofcontemporary communication. London: Hodder Education.

Küpers, W. (2013). The sense-makings of the senses - Perspectives on embodied aisthesis and aesthetics in organising & organ-izations. In I. King & J. Vickery (Eds.), Experiencing Organizations – New Aesthetic Perspectives. Oxford: Libri.

Latteier, P. (2002). Gender and the modern body: Men, women and machines in Vertov's Man with a movie camera. Post Script, 22, 1.

Lawton, A. (1978). Rhythmic Montage in the Films of Dziga Vertov: A Poetic Use of the Language of Cinema. Pacific Coast Philology, 13, 44-50.

Lawson, J. (1964). Film: The creative process. New York: Hill and Wang.

Leacock, R. (1992). Interview, The Late Show. BBC Television, March.

Lennie, I. (2000). Embodying management. In J. Hassard, R. Holliday, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Body and Organization (pp. 130-46). London: Sage.

Leonardi, P. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrications of human and material agencies. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35, 147-167.

Linstead, S., Marechal, G., & Griffin, R. (2014). Theorizing and researching the dark side of organization. Organization Studies, 35, 165-188

Lipscombe, J. (1964). Correspondence and controversy. Film Quarterly, 18, 60-68

Livingston, P., & Platinga, C. (Eds.) (2009). The Routledge companion to philosophy and film. London: Routledge.

Mak, M. (2012) Visual post-production in participatory video-making processes. In E-J. Milne, C. Mitchell, & N. de Lange (Eds.), The Handbook of Participatory Video (pp. 194-207). New York: AltaMira Press.

Marchessault, J., & Lord, S. (Eds.) (2007). Fluid Screens, Expanded Cinemas. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

32

Margolis, E. & Pauwels, L. (2011). The SAGE handbook of visual research methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Martin, P. Y. (2002). Sensations, bodies and the ‘spirit of the place’: Aesthetics in residential organizations for the elderly. Human Relations, 55, 861-885.

McCann, L., Morris, J., & Hassard J. (2008). Normalised intensity – the new labour process of middle management. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 343-371

McCloskey, D. (1988). Thick and thin methodologies in the history of economic thought. In N. de Marchi (Ed.), The Popperian legacy in economics (pp. 245-57). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

McGrail, R., Davie-Kessler, J., & Gruffin, B. (2015). Editorial: Affect, embodiment and sense perception. Cultural Anthropology, 30, 2.

Mercado, G. (2011). The filmmaker's eye: Learning (and breaking) the rules of cinematic composition. New York: Focal Press.

Meunier, D., & Vásquez, C. (2008). On shadowing the hybrid character of actions: A communicational approach. Communication Methods and Measures, 2, 167–192.

Meyer, R., Höllerer, M., Jancsary, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 489-555.

Milne, E-J., Mitchell, C. & de Lange, N. (Eds.) (2012) The Handbook of Participatory Video. New York: AltaMira Press.

Mondada, L. (2003). Working with film: how surgeons produce film records of their actions. Visual Studies, 18, 58-72.

Mondada, L. (2006). Film recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In H. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H.-G. Soeffner, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Film analysis: Methodology and method (pp. 51-67). Bern: Lang.

Morin, E. (1980). Keynote address: Festival Cinéma du Réel. Paris, May

Morris, M., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, K. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24, 781-796.

Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42, 837-855.

Nelmes, J. (Ed.) (2012). Introduction to film studies, 5th edition. London: Routledge.

Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Nichols, B. (2010). Introduction to documentary, 2nd Edition. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Nixon, S., Hall, S., & Evans, J. (2013). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (2nd Edition). London: Sage.

33

Ogden, C. and Wakeman, S. (Eds.) (2013). Corporeality: The body and society. Chester: University of Chester Press.

Ohanian, T., & Phillips, M. (2013). Digital filmmaking: The changing art and craft of making motion pictures. Abingdon, Oxon: Focal Press.

Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63-92.

Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435-1448.

Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. London: Sage.

Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pratt, M. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493.

Preda, A. (2007). The sociological approach to financial markets. Journal of Economic Issues, 21, 506-533.

Preda, A. (2009). Framing finance: The boundaries of markets and modern capitalism. London: University of Chicago Press.

Protevi, J. (2009). Political affect: Connecting the social and the somatic. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rabiger, M., & Hurbis-Cherrier, M. (2013). Directing: Film techniques and aesthetics. New York: Focal Press.

Ray, J. & Smith, A. (2012). Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations and application in a field study. Organization Research Methods, 15, 288-315.

Rhodes, G. (Ed.) (2006). Docufictions. Essays on the intersection of documentary and fictional filmmaking. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Riach, K., & Warren, S. (2014). Smell organization: Bodies and corporeal porosity in office work. Human Relations, 68, 1-21.

Rose, G. (2011). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage, 3rd Edition.

Rosile, G.A., Boje, D.M., Carlon, D.M., Downs, A., & Saylors, R. (2013). Storytelling diamond: An antenarrative integration of the six facets of storytelling in organization research design. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 557-580.

Rotha, P. (1973). Documentary Diary: An informal history of threw British documentary film, 1928-1939. New York: Hill and Wang.

Rouch, J. (1992). Interview, The Late Show. BBC Television, March.

34

Roy, D. (1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158–168.

Ruby, J. (1998). The death of the ethnographic film. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association meetings, December 2, Philadelphia.

Ruby, J. (2000). Picturing culture: Explorations of film and anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ruby, J. (2005). The image mirrored: Reflexivity and the documentary film. In A. Rosenthal, & J. Corner (Eds.), New Challenges for Documentary, 2nd edition (pp. 34-47). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Rummel, J., & Ballaine, W. (1963). Research methodology in business. New York: Harper & Row.

Sadoul, G. (1940). History of an art: The cinema. Paris: Flamarion.

Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Sewell, G., & Barker, J. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31, 934-961.

Sewell, G., & Wilkinson, B. (1992). Someone to watch over me: Surveillance, discipline and the Just-in-Time labour process. Sociology, 26, 271-289.

Shilling, C. (1993) The body and social theory. London: Sage.

Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies, 27, 585–602

Shotter, J. (2011). Getting it: Withness-thinking and the dialogical in practice. New York: Hampton Press

Sinnerbrink, R. (2011). New philosophies of film: Thinking images. London: Continuum.

Smets, M., Burke, G., Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, P. (2014). Charting new territory for organizational ethnography: Insights from a team-based film ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3, 10-26.

Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multi-level model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 877-904.

Sørensen, B. (2010). St. Paul’s conversion: The aesthetic organization of labour. Organization Studies, 31, 307-326.

Spee, P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. Organization Studies, 32, 1217-1245.

Spencer, S. (2011). Visual research methods in the social sciences: Awakening visions. London: Routledge.

Stanczak, G.C. (2007). Visual research methods: Image, society and representation. London: Sage.

35

Stead, P. (1998). The cultural representation of trades unions. In J. Hassard & R. Holliday (Eds.), Organization/representation: Work and organizations in popular culture (pp. 67-82). London: Sage.

Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156, 1–20.

Styhre, A. (2004). The (re)embodied organization: Four perspectives on the body in organizations. Human Resource Development International, 7, 101-116.

Swenney, S. (2009). Innovative filmmaking marks VES [Visual and Environmental Studies] program, Harvard Gazette. 5 February. Retrieved athttp://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/02/innovative-filmmaking-marks-ves-program/

Tabachnick, D. (2011). Wielding the camera pen: Teaching sociology through filmmaking. Humanity & Society, 35, 128-148.

Thrift, N. (2007). Non representational theory: Space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.

Tobin, J., & Davidson, D. (1990). The ethics of polyvocal ethnography: empowering vs. textualizing children and teachers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 271-283.

Turner, B. (2008). The body and society: Explorations in social theory, 3rd edition. London: Sage. Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-Practice: Taking Social Practices Seriously. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 1-52.

Van Maanen, J. (2011). Ethnography as work: some rules of engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 218-234.

Vásquez, C. (2013). Spacing organization: Or how to be here and there at the same time. In D. Robichaud & F. Cooren (Eds.), Organization and organizing: Materiality, agency, and discourse (pp. 127– 149). New York, NY: Routledge.

Vertov, D. (1963). Fragments. Artsept, 2, 20-21.

Vesa, M., & Vaara, E. (2014). Strategic ethnography 2.0: Four methods for advancing strategy process and practice research. Strategic Organization, 12, 288-298.

Warren, S. (2008). Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: Towards a sensual methodology. Organization Studies, 29, 559-580.

Watson, T.J. (2011). Ethnography, reality, and truth: the vital need for studies of ‘how things work’ in organizations and management. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 202-217.

Waskul, D., & van der Riet, P. (2002). The abject embodiment of cancer patients: Dignity, selfhood and the grotesque body. Symbolic Interactionism, 25, 487-513.

Waskul, D., & Vannini, P. (2006). Introduction: The body in symbolic interaction. In D. Waskul, & P. Vannini (Eds.), Body/embodiment: Symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body (pp. 1-18). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Weis, L., Cipollone, K., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Class warfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

36

Wiebe, S. (2015). Decolonizing engagement: Creating a sense of community through participatory filmmaking. Studies in Social Justice. 9, 244-257.

Winston, B. (1995). Claiming the real: The documentary film revisited. London: British Film Institute.

Wolkowitz, C. (2006). Bodies at work. London: Sage.

Yang, K-H. (2012). Reflexivity, Participation, and Video. In E-J. Milne, C. Mitchell, & N. de Lange (Eds.), The Handbook of Participatory Video (pp. 100-114). New York: AltaMira Press.

37